@bernie12 Sorry. I didn’t mean to be un-chill. I agree with what you said. Though I’d also suggest that people submitting a Berkeley undergrad resume undoubtedly get more “props”, on average, for their pedigree, than someone from Emory or WashU, just because of Berkeley’s well-disseminated, sterling reputation in the USA and elsewhere. On the other hand, I do sort of “pooh-pooh” the ultra-focus of some people with micro-precise tierings and rankings and reputation comparison (as I stated in my prior message). Other than very wide disparities in the pecking order, which may have some impact on your life, nobody really cares about micro-ranking differences, in practice, and the quality of the person is ultimately what matters, in any event, in my view. Recent public commentators (e.g., Frank Bruni, Malcolm Gladwell, etc.) sort of echo my own sentiments on this subject.
The only thing that makes me prefer Berkeley over many of the private schools, from my interest is the fact that perhaps by virtue of being public, it does more in the way of catering to super ambitious students much like many Ivies (especially top ones) do in the way that they tier the courses. However, I looked at some of the undergraduate courses in STEM for the “masses” (like your plain old science major or pre-health that is not a genius or super ambitious in a discipline) and it looks more like Emory (and that league of private schools) and the lower Ivies than it does the very top Ivies and most top 10 schools. Arguably, some students could prefer the similarly selective private schools because they are simply smaller and the vast resources are technically more accessible to more students and perhaps the classroom environment is more nurturing in many cases. For undergraduate, the tiering provided was fair, but in terms overall impact as an institution, no one would deny it is on a different level as are many elite publics. I personally am willing to admit that many of the schools below the top 10, for undergraduate do not have the same intensity or necessarily even academic prowess in undergraduate education as most of the top 10. They are comparable in some ways but not necessarily as consistently good in what they offer to UGs. And part of this comes from the simple fact that most are just not nearly as rich, especially when you talk private schools (Berkeley is big and rich, but some privates are relatively small and insanely rich).
I love Emory, but I am not going to get on here and say that an undergraduate would have a similar academic experience or environment as they would at HYPSM and many schools up there. Even if its research infrastructure and reputation from that shot through the roof and became 4 like UC Berkeley, I am not going to say “oh yeah, undergrad. at Emory is way beyond those schools we rank around and this is like going to Harvard” (though people at some schools will tell such lies or be so proud and pretentious). I would simply argue that there are surprising comparisons to be drawn, but that they represent potential and not perfection (which not even the most elite schools reach but for sake of calibration let us say that some UG programs are) unless I can say for sure that the programmatic offerings, rigor, quality, access to resources, are very similar or better than those places. I cannot say that now. I can just say that is among the best undergraduate programs, even if not “the” best. It certainly fits many people.
There are some graduate programs that can hang with the “very” top graduate programs in that field, but right now undergraduate in many areas just hangs with the “top”. I am comfortable with this current reality, and hope it improves.
@bernie12 Sorry. I didn’t mean to be un-chill. In fact, per my message, I think that the micro-focus of some people on relative rankings and reputations is misguided, as what matters ultimately is the quality of the person and what you do with your life (at college and beyond)–wherever you went (a la Steve Jobs, etc., etc.). Beyond very wide disparities in the pecking order (e.g., HYPS vs. some quite low ranking school), I don’t think there’s much difference at all, at the end of the day (which is why grad schools are filled with people from colleges of all kinds, and why a lot of successful people have degrees from “lesser” renowned colleges or have no degree at all!) And the “official” rankings and reputation assessments are often quite superficial and arbitrary or are advanced by someone promoting a certain viewpoint or having an ax to grind. Cheers.
@Chrchill : All indicators other than SAT put Emory and Vanderbilt (and WUSTL) in the same category. Duke is somewhere else. Even after the increase in SATs, the caliber of VU and Emory are still about the same (post-grad. outputs remain similar), however I think the other 3 (Rice, VU, Duke) have been regarded more highly regardless of caliber which is sensible. Emory joined AAU in 95, so was not really but so relevant as a research or any type academic powerhouse until recently and thus Emory is much more “new money”/cosmopolitan type of feel than at least 2 of those (median parent in comes at it are much lower than VU and Duke for example and less wealthy people attend in general. Sadly that is a measure of lay prestige or some sort of reputation in addition to marketing). It is a reputational newb no matter how similar it looks performance wise to some other places. That is a fact of life.
And I would put both a touch below WUSTL which has kind of been in the game longer as a research U and has more impact than that area. One may be able to also argue that it is known for more rigorous academics overall (as many D-3 schools are. Emory is, but it lacks engineering, so I leave it out of those schools considered very to super intense. Though I like Emory and WUSTL in life sciences quite a bit better at UG level after seeing some things. These two should definitely be regarded as most similar in vibe despite kind of large differences in academic offerings).
@GoldenState99 : People really need to just learn how to get and optimize their education. The piece of paper comes at the end. I think all this worry about brand and even rank unfortunately gets too many people going to the wrong school for the wrong reason and then they realize they don’t fit. Like I am so tired of all this idiocy comparing like Duke and VU to Emory. The buck pretty much stops at they are elite and in the south. There may be some overlap in undergraduate strength (as in specific areas), but vibes and most of it are completely different, yet Emory, a D-3 school with low emphasis on sports culture, and Greeklife in the background compared to those and many other places still gets the folks who expect the same vibe (so we end up with fools who complain about the dining hall and Migos lol). I feel like more than 70% of Emory know that they are signing up for a WUSTL, JHU, or even CMU type of experience and are very happy and comfortable with that, but yet many do not do research and expect it be like some other places and end up just enrolling because of the rank (it is almost like going to Berkeley and expecting the comfort and amenities of say…Yale as a random example. If your values and priorities do not remotely align with what a school does well, even if top ranked, stay away. It is that simple. There could be cheaper options that are better aligned on the table). Many hardly even know or care about key academic differences (as in offerings) between it and other choices they had. As I always mention, the engineering thing still happens for example, where someone enrolls and really thought Emory had engineering. The ranking craze has led to laziness on the part of prospective students and reduced the process to just “getting in” somewhere top ranked.
@GoldenState99 : Thanks for your comment. I understand your perspective on the rankings, and I do agree with many of your arguments, but I just want to make several things clear about my post earlier that you found to be partially erroneous.
First of all, I have just been through the whole college admissions process fairly recently, so I can definitely understand the criticisms towards these college rankings that sometimes are quite superficial. However, my experience applying to colleges have really exposed me to how realistic society is – in that not only do students and parents heavily rely on the rankings when deciding where to apply and where to attend, schools and employers (hate to say it but true) really care about the rankings too. It looks good on paper and sometimes that is all that matters in our cutthroat society. Sad but true. I am sure this is why the OP asked what he/she asked: to comment on the prestige and quality of the UG program at individual institutions. I am simply answering his/her question. His/her concern is valid – everyone wants to succeed, even if its in a society that is realistic and superficial. Nothing can change that really other than play by its rules.
I understand your criticisms on how I tier these institutions, but I stand by my initial stance.
- It is an undeniable fact that Berkeley is an exceptional institution, and its reputation outweighs all of the schools in the Vanderbilt-WashU-Emory-Georgetown tier. However, when we are comparing UG programs, Berkeley does not stand out too much as a far better school. This might be due to the school's enormous student population (which means incredibly large classes, very high faculty-to-student ratio). In addition, Berkeley practices serious grade deflation and uses the bell curve, and that hurts a lot of students there who are at the bottom half of their respective class, even if their raw scores aren't too bad. This explains why many Berkeley UGs do not graduate in 4 years, but 5 or 6. Of course, students should choose their schools based on 'fit' and Berkeley is a certainly a great fit for students who thrive in a very competitive environment with high pressure, and I personally know many students like this.
In addition, Berkeley’s reputation only got to its heights today with a lot of help from its grad programs and researches. Berkeley is at the cutting edge of university researches, and its grad programs are on par with HYPSM if not better. But when we evaluate a school’s UG we should only look at the quality of their UG school, not other factors that boosted its prestige.
- CMU is a truly exceptional school too, but its an undeniable fact that a large factor of its excellence and reputation comes from its CS program. That is why it is sometimes seen as on par with the VU-WashU-Emory-Georgetown-Rice tier. Sure, its CS program is top 3 in the country (maybe in the world), but that does not mean that one major can elevate the whole institution onto a higher level. When we compare UG programs, we should compare all the programs holistically, not just highlighting certain majors to compare.
- Tufts is also a fantastic school, but to say its WashU- Emory level is not perfectly accurate. In my NJ high school, my class had about 100 students, and nearly 50 students are attending top 20 institutions/top 5 LAC (according to the USNWR list). Lots of my classmates chose Tufts as a same-level/safety school, but saw Emory and WashU and VU as reach schools. I did not treat Tufts as a reach either. Perhaps that is saying something about the performance of my class, but it is also saying something about the schools themselves.
Anyways, thanks for your reply to my earlier post. I really appreciate your feedback despite our disagreements and I am happy to answer any inquires you have on my perspective on colleges.
Cheers!
@cchau3399 As a student going to Tufts, I saw Emory as a safety-match while Tufts as a reach. I applied ED2 to Tufts and got an Oxford Merit scholarship at Emory before being admitted to Tufts, and declined Emory’s offer for Tufts without hesitation. Tufts was probably a safety school back 20-30 years ago and has been regarded a safety school for too long that people don’t realize that it was as hard to get in as Cornell last year.
Meanwhile, I saw Rice and Vandy as reaches. From an admissions difficulty stand point, Tufts is probably close to or as hard to get in than Rice+Vandy (My friend was rejected Tufts ED1 and accepted Rice RD) and definitely harder than Emory (14% vs 25% admit rates and higher SATs at Tufts)). However, academics still need improvement at Tufts and I would put it at most in the CMU and USC tier, an edge below Rice/WashU/Emory. Evaluating here objectively and I do not think that Tufts’ peers are schools like Cornell/Penn, as itself officially claims on peer network (http://www.chronicle.com/interactives/peers-network) lol. That may change in the future though, Tufts may become better than some Ivies or become less regarded than BC and BU . Who knows.
@Bjklw2a What about Tufts’ academics do you feel needs to be improved?
@Bjklw2a : Emory has always been easier to get into than all of these places (even during its “rise” it had lower scores) and will probably remain so because it actually admits low income folks and tons of QB scholars and also doesn’t allocate enough fin. aid resources to support to far outside students below a certain income level (it basically expends most on these students and no where near as much on middle and upper middle class. I guess this is wrong in terms of prestige as Emory will get higher scores doing the latter). That just is what it is. Does a damned good job educating a very good but imperfect bunch. Tufts is damned good as well. I don’t see what problems you would have with it. Also, VU’s SATs are HYP level. That is the admissions scheme they decided to go toward and so did WUSTL and Chicago (the latter I suppose is more justified…I guess). Tufts has always been more like Cornell and that bunch admissions wise. Emory has never been too relevant in terms of being super duper selective. But oddly enough, may have had at least slightly higher SATs before the admit rate dipped into the 20s and before the “QB era” as I am now calling it. But I again, find that the classes and academic resources are about the same level as the schools in its ranking tier (I guess that is weird to some, but it used to be a more regional strong teaching university. When focus is on instruction/teaching, more instructors will have courses that punch above their weight and this is a good thing. Emory still has this sort of but to a lesser extent. And at end of day, instructors do not change or even decide how to teach based on differing degrees of elite or even increasing eliteness. If they are at a selective school with over 1300 SAT average, they are more likely to teach more rigorously or try educational innovation because this level of students can handle it) I would expect Tufts to be as good too but with different strengths. I am very curious to see what you think is wrong with it. I am honestly betting you can find similar issues at Emory, or any of the similar level schools, but some student bodies are so prideful or have such low expectations in the first place that they will not admit weaknesses or will just assume everything is fine.
Also, CMU is very strong I thought, though I guess more imbalanced in strength. Like VU, Emory, Rice, WUSTL can claim to be strong in several STEM areas at the UG level while also claiming strength in some social sciences and humanities disciplines, even if they do all do it differently. CMU is more similar to STEM universities in some ways I guess, but it is not necessarily like an MIT of course.
@bernie12 @Bjklw2a @cchau3399
Actually this year and I think the year before Emory had/has higher Admitted Sat scores than Tufts. For this year a 1475 for Emory and 1445 for Tufts is a small but noticeable difference. I’m not sure how this translates to Enrolled Sat avgs, and I’m not sure if this trend for Emory will continue but it’s nice to see. Emory does have a higher admit rate than Tufts so it might be relatively easier to get into but that can be explained by Emory’s larger size.
@bernie12 surprisingly Tufts gave me more FA than Emory even with the merit aid and I am rather lower middle income (50-70k household in MA), making Emory cost more at the end. I may have chosen to go with Emory and asked to defer my ED2 application at Tufts if Emory had offered more and was affordable. Overall, I know that looking at US News is not accurate but this is from a post a while back (based on 2015 rankings) and it just shows some differences in the strengths of the academic departments.
Engineering
- Tufts is tied for 68th
- CMU #4, USC #10, Cornell #13, Penn #19, Northwestern #21, JHU #25, Rice #31, BU #37, Roch #39, NYU #47, Brown #49
Biology
- Tufts is tied for 68th with NYU
- JHU #5, Cornell/WUSTL #11, Penn #19, NU/Vandy #26, Emory #30, Brown #34, CMU/Rice #42, Brandeis #55, USC #65
Math
- Tufts is tied for 73rd (with NYU-Brooklyn)
- The Real NYU #9, Cornell #13, Brown #14, NU/Penn #17, JHU #25, Rice #28, CMU #34, WUSTL #39, Brandeis/Notre Dame #41, BU/USC/Vandy #46, Emory #65
I think Tufts may be more of a humanities and social science school and not too STEM strong, and its weaknesses may lie in its STEM departments. Overall, I chose Tufts because it is close to home, more humanities based and undergrad focused through small classes despite lower rankings.
And @VANDEMORY1342, last year’s admitted SAT scores were 1465/1600 (Math+CR old scale) at Tufts and 2135/2400 (Math+CR+W old scale) at Emory. But I think with the introduction of the new SAT, everything is still unknown as even Williams College, which had higher stats than both Emory and Tufts last year, only has a 1443 new SAT avg this year (https://communications.williams.edu/news-releases/3_23_2017_admittedstudents/) while BU has a 1452 avg. Also, this decrease in SAT scores at Tufts may be due to Tufts’ new art school (SMFA), which made the university admit about 200 or so more students (2890 last year admitted vs 3128 admitted this year) and I assume you’re probably not going want to go to an art gallery full of just high SAT scores.
Anyways, stats aren’t everything and I’m not calling Emory or Tufts weak schools. In the end, the difference between them and peers in prestige is likely small and they both offer phenomenal educations that probably don’t differ much in quality from a top-notch Ivy education anyway. As the cliched, but true, phrase says, “it’'s not the school you go to, but what you make of your education that matters”
@VANDEMORY1342 : Emory will not be able to enrolll at that level. You must buy those students. Emory will not. Also, I don’t think Emory will be competitive SAT wise with Tufts or its own peers. It will provide a similar education to them though which is what matters.
@Bjklw2a Absolutely, Tufts is renowned and a great institution. Although I still think it’s peer group of Chapel Hill ,USC, and Georgia Tech, BC is a cut below Emory , WUSTL, and Vandy at the end of the day it doesn’t matter as education is what you make of it. One thing I will say it that I feel as though Prestige and SAT scores are similar in the fact that they are self fulfilling prophecies. So Emory and BU may have gotten lucky but it certainly happened at the right time. I hypothesize that this may have to do with the preferences of the post millennials as they might be more interested in living in/near the large Big 10 cities. Just a thought.
Could you tell me a little about Tufts art program, is it a mini Julliard?
@bernie12 Well of course. It’s still very impressive and I’m proud of them. Even if it drops 50 points a 1425 still very high. However they might be trying to do just that and buy these higher income( whom are most likely higher scoring) students. And quote " {“We did make some adjustments [to financial aid] to try and strengthen our appeal … for low-income families, middle-income families and even upper-middle income families where they’re prosperous families but the costs of Emory are so high we know it can be a sacrifice financially,” Latting said.}
@VANDEMORY1342 lol hopefully it’s the first year. No one knows how the program is yet but half of it is like CS/Art double degree to attract more interdisciplinary people as well. Feel happy for Emory’s score rise as well as I was accepted there and was able to help contribute to it :). Unfortunately won’t be attending. Perhaps why people like me are getting lower FA was them trying to buy those higher income kids?
@Bjklw2a : Naw, all of you get screwed by folks like me, the second cohort of students that benefited from the Emory Advantage Loan Replacement Program! Again, more very low income students I guess.
You will be fine at Tufts.
@VANDEMORY1342 : It tracks well with prestige sadly but not academic quality. Sadly, especially in STEM I have looked around at course websites and other materials and have not found much evidence that any instructors at schools much more selective than they were even 10 years ago, changed the level of their courses. I find that disappointing for America in general because we should look to challenge the ever increasingly bright students in the “correct” way. Like many faculty still think simply moving faster than normal is sufficient even if their course is just merely asking students to learn at a surface level faster. At some very tippy top schools, consistency is more common (in challenging students to also learn material deeply and problem solve at high levels) but many others were just all over the place. In fact I remember comparing certain course (often I looked at popular pre-health ones like ochem, gchem, biology, neuro courses, and some upper division ones as well) offerings at Emory to some peers and would find that the best and supposedly most rigorous instructor for it (the one that got complaints that they were hard) paled in comparison to or was only comparable to a “medium” level instructor for the course at Emory (again at places with much higher ranges than Emory today).
Also student culture is big to me and I think it contributes to maintaining some level of academic quality. Emory has some tried and true tough instructors for some courses (I am personally willing to admit that Emory seems extremely lucky in this regard. Where do all the Spells, Eisens, Edwards, Sorias, Bings, Weinschenks, Nemenmans, Walkers, Giles, Payne, etc come from and why do so many students like instead of despise them?) in several divisions (STEM or non) and a significant amount of these notorious instructors are very highly praised and nowhere near as derided as they likely would be at some places. I have always proposed that Emory may be among schools in this weird academic sweet spot of recruiting (maybe score or EC wise) where the students it yields can tolerate or appreciate more challenging than normal instruction (though pre-professionalism puts limits on how far this goes at Emory tbh). It seems some schools have gotten to the point where the students who end up in this situation are completely caught off guard or just did not ever expect or desire to be challenged that way perhaps because they have near perfect scores coming in. They get very upset when the course content or the exams or assignments cause them to break more than one sweat. At Emory it looks like many either a) avoid the rigor (like many places) or b) suck it up, do the work, and than Dr. Weinschenk, Edwards, etc later lol. Just anecdotally for the CC context: There is certainly a lack of several students responding to threads (or prospective students creating them) about grade deflation the way you see it elsewhere (and from what I have seen it often is not warranted, usually complaints come most from places where many professors grade like they do at Emory and sometimes even pitch the course lower…).
Humanities and Social Sciences: You will likely often get great class discussions but I bet the returns diminish beyond a generally elite (1300+ maybe 1350+) student body sets foot on campus. Any differences beyond that will likely come more so from diversity. Like I remember taking Dr. Payne’s Russian History intro. level course at Emory and we discussed economics and its influence on Russian’s views on a certain issue and I must say that the discourse and discussion could not be more enhanced by students with higher MC test scores but was great because we had really good students that came from places like Germany that could offer a completely different perspective (from their own country’s) coupled with the knowledge they gained from simply being an econ. major. Once the students are good and the professor engaging, an extra spark coming from diverse backgrounds and origins starts a fire in terms of classroom discussion.
This thread is really about about a high school student and his parents that just aren’t familiar universities beyond what is in their own backyard and, probably, universities that get publicity from sports teams. Emory is a national university and well know throughout the country. Alumni are in most major cities and interview students in those cities. With all of that being said, you’d be splitting hairs to say you are better off at one of the schools he listed over another. Students should apply to schools based on fit from offering in choice of major to fit within the student body. I also disagree with the post earlier on Brandeis over BC or BU. Those three schools are all close with respect to job placement and the only separating them would be the student applicant’s grades and communication skills in the interview. It’s painful to see advice on rankings among similar schools. Emory is a great school, but if it’s not a fit and you’re not personally motivated to go there, don’t apply.